Destructoid - Oh no, sixty dollars for eight hours? Just ... shut up. Thanks MG Admin.I'm talking about the, "I'm not spending $60 for eight hours" crowd. Apparently, a game that lasts eight hours is now a failure, and not worth paying full price for, no matter how good it is. This new emphasis on length over quality smacks of middle school essay requirements, where your word count was more crucial than your writing ability.

Well, yeah. That's the whole problem. BC2 had weak single-player and if you only care about single-player, a strong multiplayer component won't compensate for that.

My favorite games tend to be either completely single-player or multiplayer focused. Q3, Tribes, Deus Ex, Planescape Torment, Fallout, etc. Games that try to do both end up failing in one or both regards.

I don't know a single person that actually finished Bad Company 2's single player. Sometimes, who gives a crap?

I assume people who care about BC2 single-player more than multiplayer.

I love single player games but I don't think I even made it halfway through BC2's first sp level. I had more fun listening to all the banter I managed to squeeze out by just standing still than I did shooting popup AI heads.

I won't complain about anyone or anything. When I'm ready for Dead Space 2, it'll have droped to 20€ or less and I'll surely play it for more than 8 hours. Oh happy me, I get the best out of everything. Why should I bother if anyone pays more and plays it less? It's a free world baby!

Shineyguy wrote on Feb 1, 2011, 18:43:Third... Do I have a third point? Oh yeah, third; as long as I enjoy the experience, $60 is totally worth the price to me. I don't make a lot of money, but I have enough to spend on the games that catch my eye, and I'm thankful for that. Whether the game is $50 or $60, 4, 6, 8 or more hours, if it delivers an experience that gets me talking about it with my friends, then it's worth it.

I do expect a certain amount of play-time from a $60 game. But, if it's a really good game, then that 8 hour playthrough will undoubtedly translate into multiple playthroughs.

If it's a crappy game, I don't care how many hours it takes to complete...I'll never finish it anyway. And if I walk away after 20 hours feeling meh about it, then it's simply not a better game or a better value.

Would much rather have 8 hours of awesome than the mandatory 40-60 hours of blah.

Firstly, at $60, games today are CHEAPER than they were in the past at $50, or even $40. This has been proven. Look at inflation statistics, at $60 we're still cheaper than before. Quite whining about it.

Second, online Multiplayer games. People play them because no two experiences are the same, even on the same map. You're generally playing against a new set of adversaries that are much different than the previous set. (And I played through the singleplayer in Bad Company 2; though I went in knowing that DICE has only made one single player game before it, Bad Company 1...)

Third... Do I have a third point? Oh yeah, third; as long as I enjoy the experience, $60 is totally worth the price to me. I don't make a lot of money, but I have enough to spend on the games that catch my eye, and I'm thankful for that. Whether the game is $50 or $60, 4, 6, 8 or more hours, if it delivers an experience that gets me talking about it with my friends, then it's worth it.

Flatline wrote on Feb 1, 2011, 17:27:That's one of the most bullshit arguments made when it comes to game length.

Game length is, by it's very nature, a function of single player, and occasionally co-op. You can't measure game length in multiplayer. Besides, in COD's case, endlessly grinding deathmatch for hours on end so you can unlock new weapons and new game modes is not exactly high value.

Remember, these games are competing against RPGs that take 40+ hours to finish, racing games that can be played for hundreds of hours, and sandbox games which usually take at *least* 20 hours to complete. All these games clock in at the same price point. If you're playing a game that's 1/3 the length of Red Dead Redemption, you better have a f*cking amazing experience in store for me.

So no one plays CoD just because they enjoy shooting dudes for hundreds of hours, and no one refuses to play racing games because they see it as an endless loop around the same small patch of terrain grinding for first place in every race.

Kedyn wrote on Feb 1, 2011, 16:48:I'm surprised no one ever mentions multiplayer for a game that is 4 hours long... Or, god forbid, REPLAYING the game.

I don't know a single person that actually finished Bad Company 2's single player. Sometimes, who gives a crap?

That's one of the most bullshit arguments made when it comes to game length.

Game length is, by it's very nature, a function of single player, and occasionally co-op. You can't measure game length in multiplayer. Besides, in COD's case, endlessly grinding deathmatch for hours on end so you can unlock new weapons and new game modes is not exactly high value.

As for replaying the game, yes, I do replay my games, but saying "see? That's content!" is short-bus levels of stupidity.

If I get 15 hours of gameplay through one playthrough of a game, I've gotten my money's worth. If it's under 10 hours to finish, I seriously question if I want to play this game or not. It better be an amazing game to justify that.

Remember, these games are competing against RPGs that take 40+ hours to finish, racing games that can be played for hundreds of hours, and sandbox games which usually take at *least* 20 hours to complete. All these games clock in at the same price point. If you're playing a game that's 1/3 the length of Red Dead Redemption, you better have a f*cking amazing experience in store for me.

Some games benefit from a shorter playtime than others. Survival Horror games benefit from gameplay on the shorter side, because after around the 12-15 hour point, you're either too jaded to get spooked, or you don't want to play the game any more because you're tired of being tense. Unless an FPS has brilliant and absorbing gameplay, it gets stale after 8 or 9 hours. Some games like that horrible Transformers War for Cybertron game just need to be over as quickly as possible for all our sakes.

I finished the latest Call of Duty game in about 5 and a half hours on hard difficulty.

At least 30 minutes of that was restarting one particular fight over and over again that was stupid bullshit. So without that one particular grindfest, you're looking at 5 hours of gameplay.

My point of view is that Destructoid must have had their visitor rates slack off, so one of their contributors cranked out something antagonistic and "controversial" and boom! Angry nerd rage and they get a surge of traffic.

Just for that, I am skipping going to their site for the rest of the month. With shit dribble like this article, I won't be missing much.

Games are not short because producers want to make them good, they are short because developers want to make the most money for the least effort. Greed seems to be the motivating factor. I also found some of the comparisons used to be more than a little off the wall. Perhaps the use of prostitution was meant to be funny or to shock but if we ever want gaming to become a mainstream activity we should shy away from the adolescent mindset that seems to be such a large part of gaming media. BTW-I liked Risen and Dead Space 2 is taking me more than 10 hours to complete. Medal of Honor, however, was a rip-off at a bit over 4 hours.